Comparison of Environmental Performance Expectations: Gasification Versus Mass-Burn WTE Facilities Currently Under Construction in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, factors including limited landfill capacity, increasing costs of fossil fuels, and increased pressure to actively recover value from waste in the form of materials and energy have encouraged municipalities throughout North America to advance waste management strategies that utilize waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies as an alternative to landfilling. Currently, utilization of alternative conversion technologies, including gasification, is limited to small-scale or pilot municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy facilities in North America. Though limited history of environmental performance when using MSW as a primary feedstock has delayed public acceptance of facility proposals, municipalities are now moving forward with alternative conversion technology applications. In Florida, two entities have received permits from the Department of Environmental Protection to proceed with construction of gasification facilities — Geoplasma, Inc. in St. Lucie County, and INEOS New Planet BioEnergy in Vero Beach. In Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Enerkem GreenField Alberta Biofuels has received a permit from Alberta Environment to begin construction of a gasification facility that will produce bioethanol from post-recycled MSW. Since 1996, no new greenfield MSW-processing mass burn facility has been constructed in the U.S., though facilities in Hillsborough County, FL; Lee County, FL; and Olmstead County, MN have undergone expansions, and in Honolulu, FL, a 900 TPD unit is currently under construction. In recent years, two municipalities have received permits to proceed with construction of mass burn WTE facilities and have made significant progress toward implementation: The municipalities of Durham and York, Ontario, Canada and The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida. This paper will provide a direct comparison of the expected environmental performance of the recently permitted gasification facilities to the expected environmental performance of the recently permitted mass burn WTE facilities, as established by permit applications and emissions modeling studies. Comparison of emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and hydrogen chloride will be performed on the basis of one ton of feedstock processed. Emission of these pollutants at the recently permitted facilities discussed above will be contrasted with emissions experienced at currently operating WTE facilities within North America.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".